DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment to the claims was submitted on 03/25/2026, claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are canceled.
Claim Status
Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-18 are under consideration
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are canceled
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US20110311915A1, published 2011) in view of Hatakeyama (US20180335696A1, published 2018).
Regarding claims 2-5, 7-10, and 17-18,
Kimura teaches a photosensitive resist underlayer film forming composition used in a lithography process includes: a polymer (A) containing a unit structure having a hydroxy group, a unit structure having a carboxy group, or combination thereof; a crosslinkable compound (B) having at least two vinyl ether groups (crosslinking agent); a photoacid generator (C) (a component which is decomposed by irradiation of an active ray or a radiant ray to generate an acid); a C4-20 fluoroalkylcarboxylic acid or a salt of the fluoroalkylcarboxylic acid (D); and a solvent (E) [abstract], reading on instant claims 4-5.
Kimura teaches the polymer (A) includes unit structures of formulae (1) and (2) [0013], including example formulae (1-1) and (2-6) [0037], aligning with instant formulae (a1) and (a2), reading on instant claims 7-10.
PNG
media_image1.png
148
281
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
97
286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
116
286
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
70
284
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kimura teaches their crosslinkable compound with formula (4) [0015], including an example (4-1) [0054], aligning with instant formula (1), reading on instant claims 17-18.
PNG
media_image5.png
68
285
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
136
289
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kimura teaches an of their component (D) including the following triphenylsulfonium tricosafluorododecanoate [0086], aligning with instant formula (2).
PNG
media_image7.png
240
296
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kimura teaches solvents such as ethylene glycol monomethyl ether (an organic solvent) [0068].
Kimura fails to teach a photoacid generating component as part of the polymer chain.
Hatakeyama, analogous art, teaches a resist composition comprising of a polymer comprising recurring units having the formula (a1) [claim 1], including the following example anion and cation [0044-0045],where RA is H or Methyl, reading on instant claims 2-3.
PNG
media_image8.png
178
289
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
149
120
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
134
138
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama further teaches a polymer comprising recurring units derived from a sulfonium or iodonium salt having a polymerizable unsaturated bond and containing an iodine atom in the linker between the polymerizable unsaturated bond and a fluorosulfonic acid, as the polymer-bound acid generator, a resist material having a high sensitivity, reduced LWR, improved CDU, high contrast, improved resolution, and wide process margin is obtainable [0011].
As both Hatakeyama and Kimura teach photosensitive resist compositions comprising of a fluorosulfonic acid sulfonium salt as photoacid generators, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the polymer-bound acid generator of Hatakeyama with the polymer of Kimura for the benefits disclosed by Hatakeyama.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US20110311915A1, published 2011) in view of Hatakeyama (US20180335696A1, published 2018) as applied to claims 2-5 above, and further in view of Taniguchi (US20200301274A1, published 2020).
Regarding claims 12-15,
Kimura et al. teaches the above limitations set forth.
Kimura fails to teach their component (D) contains an iodine atom.
Taniguchi, analogous art, teaches a photosensitive resist composition comprising of a quencher containing an onium salt with the following formula (A-1) [abstract], including the following example anion and cation [0053-0054], reading on instant claim 12-15.
PNG
media_image11.png
119
294
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
90
192
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
134
138
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Taniguchi teaches their sulfonium salt constituting the inventive chemically-amplified negative resist composition has high molecular weight due to iodine, so that it is characterized in that the acid diffusion is small. Further, since iodine considerably absorbs EUV at a wavelength of 13.5 nm, secondary electrons generated from iodine during exposure move to a strong-acid generator and promote the decomposition of protective group, so that high sensitivity is achieved. Furthermore, iodine atoms have a low affinity to an alkaline developer and lower the solubility thereto, so that a negative pattern formed using the inventive negative resist composition is less dissolved in a developer than negative patterns formed using conventional negative resist compositions are. Accordingly, a pattern with little top loss and favorable profile can be formed [0028].
As both Taniguchi and Kimura teaches photosensitive resist compositions comprising of a fluoroalkylcarboxylic acid sulfonium salt, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the iodine containing fluoroalkylcarboxylic acid sulfonium salt as the fluoroalkylcarboxylic acid sulfonium salt of Kimura for the benefits disclosed by Taniguchi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Kimura is drawn to a resist underlayer film formed beneath a resist upper layer film that is subjected to exposure and development, while Hatakeyama is drawn to a composition for forming a resist upper layer film, where the resist underlayer film of Kimura would not generally contain a photoacid generating component. Applicant further asserts that the instant resist material of claim 2 shows excellent contrast in pattern formation, where in contrast the resist underlayer film of Kimura cannot achieve such effects.
However, the examiner disagrees. The resist underlayer of Kimura is disclosed to be both exposed and developed along with the overlying resist upper film where the resist underlayer film together with the resist is exposed to light through a mask, an acid is generated by a photoacid generator in the resist underlayer film and the generated acid breaks the acetal bond to form an alkali-soluble group such as a hydroxy group, a carboxy group, or combination thereof. Accordingly, an exposed portion is removed together with the resist by an alkaline developer to form a pattern [0018-0019], clearly teaching exposure and development to form a pattern in their resist underlayer film formed from a composition containing a photoacid generator. Kimura further teaches their composition results in a resist shape that is considered to be a rectangular shape (excellent contrast) [0022]. As both Kimura and Hatakeyama teach photosensitive resist film forming compositions containing similar photoacid generators, the examiner maintains the rejection to claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-18.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571) 272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights